, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 506–520 | Cite as

Projecting Climate Change Effects on Forest Net Primary Productivity in Subtropical Louisiana, USA

  • Fugui Wang
  • Y. Jun Xu
  • Thomas J. Dean


This study projected responses of forest net primary productivity (NPP) to three climate change scenarios at a resolution of 5 km × 5 km across the state of Louisiana, USA. In addition, we assessed uncertainties associated with the NPP projection at the grid and state levels. Climate data of the scenarios were derived from Community Climate System Model outputs. Changes in annual NPP between 2000 and 2050 were projected with the forest ecosystem model PnET-II. Results showed that forest productivity would increase under climate change scenarios A1B and A2, but with scenario B1, it would peak during 2011–2020 and then decline. The projected average NPP under B1 over the years from 2000 to 2050 was significantly different from those under A1B and A2. Forest NPP appeared to be primarily a function of temperature, not precipitation. Uncertainties of the NPP projection were due to large spatial resolution of the climate variables. Overall, this study suggested that in order to project effects of climate change on forest ecosystem at regional level, modeling uncertainties could be reduced by increasing the spatial resolution of the climate projections.


Climate change Subtropical forests Net primary productivity Pnet-II Uncertainty Community Climate System Model 3.0 (CCSM3.0) 



This study was mainly supported by the Louisiana Board of Regents under award LEQSF (2004-07)-RD-A-04. We would like to thank the two anonymous referees for providing us with valuable comments on our manuscript.


  1. Aber, J.D., and C.A. Federer. 1992. A generalized, lumped-parameter model of photosynthesis, evapotranspiration and net primary production in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. Oecologia 92: 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aber, J.D., R.P. Neilson, S. McNulty, J.M. Lenihan, D. Bachelet, and R.J. Drapek. 2001. Forest processes and global environmental change: Predicting the effects of individual and multiple stressors. BioScience 51: 735–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aber, J.D., S.V. Ollinger, C.A. Federer, P.B. Reich, M.L. Goulden, D.W. Kicklighter, J.M. Melillo, and R.G. Lathrop. 1995. Predicting the effects of climate change on water yield and forest production in the northeastern United States. Climate Research 5: 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aber, J.D., P.B. Reich, and M.L. Goulden. 1996. Extrapolating leaf CO2 exchange to the canopy: A generalized model of forest photosynthesis compared with measurements by eddy correlation. Oecologia 106: 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birdsey, R., K. Pregitzer, and L. Lucier. 2005. Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600–2100. The Third USDA Symposium on Greenhouse Gases & Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  6. Boisvenue, C., and S.W. Running. 2006. Impacts of climate change on natural forest productivity—Evidence since the middle of the 20th century. Global Change Biology 12: 862–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brinkmann, W.A.R. 1979. Growing-Season Length as an Indicator of Climatic Variations. Climatic Change 2: 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. California Soil Resource Lab. 2006. Profile water storage as calculated from SSURGO. Accessed 01 September 2008.
  9. Campbell, J.L., L.E. Rustad, E.W. Boyer, S.F. Christopher, C.T. Driscoll, I.J. Fernandez, P.M. Groffman, D. Houle, et al. 2009. Consequences of climate change for biogeochemical cycling in forests of northeastern North America. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 39: 264–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciais, P., P.P. Tans, M. Trolier, J.W.C. White, and R.J. Francey. 1995. A large northern-hemisphere terrestrial CO2 sink indicated by the C-13/C-12 ratio of atmospheric CO2. Science 269: 1098–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drake, B.G., M.A. Gonzàlez-Meler, and S.P. Long. 1997. More efficient plants: A consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 48: 609–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellsworth, D.S., and P.B. Reich. 1992. Leaf mass per area, nitrogen-content and photosynthetic carbon gain in acer-saccharum seedlings in contrasting forest light environments. Functional Ecology 6: 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goward, S.N., J.G. Masek, W. Cohen, G. Moisen, G.J. Collatz, S. Healey, R.A. Houghton, C. Huang, et al. 2008. Forest disturbance and North American carbon flux. EOS 89: 105–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hattenschwiler, S., F. Miglietta, A. Raschi, and C. Korner. 1997. Thirty years of in situ tree growth under elevated CO2: a model for future forest responses? Global Change Biology 3: 463–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC. 2007a. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability—Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. IPCC. 2007b. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis—Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Korner, C., R. Asshoff, O. Bignucolo, S. Hattenschwiler, S.G. Keel, S. Pelaez-Riedl, S. Pepin, R.T.W. Siegwolf, et al. 2005. Carbon flux and growth in mature deciduous forest trees exposed to elevated CO2. Science 309: 1360–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kurz, W.A., G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, C.C. Dymond, and E.T. Neilson. 2008. Risk of natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada’s forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 1551–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maier, C.A., S. Palmroth, and E. Ward. 2008. Short-term effects of fertilization on photosynthesis and leaf morphology of field-grown loblolly pine following long-term exposure to elevated CO2 concentration. Tree Physiology 28: 597–606.Google Scholar
  20. Matamala, R., M.A. Gonzàlez-Meler, J.D. Jastrow, R.J. Norby, and W.H. Schlesinger. 2003. Impacts of fine root turnover on forest NPP and soil C sequestration potential. Science 302: 1385–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McNulty, S.G., L. Iverson, R. Abt, B. Smith, B. Murray, R.A. Mickler, and J.D. Aber. 2000. Application of linked regional scale growth, biogeography, and economic models for southeastern United States pine forests. World Resource Review 12: 298–320.Google Scholar
  22. McNulty, S.G., J.M. Vose, and W.T. Swank. 1996. Potential climate change effects on loblolly pine forest productivity and drainage across the southern United States. Ambio 25: 449–453.Google Scholar
  23. Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, and R. Knutti. 2007. Global climate projections. In Climate change 2007: The physical science basis—Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, H.L. Miller, et al., 748–845. Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 1992. 1992 national land cover data. Accessed 05 March 2008.
  25. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2001. 2001 national land cover data. Accessed 12 March 2008.
  26. Nakicenovic, N., J. Alcamo, G. Davis, B. de Vries, J. Fenhann, S. Gaffin, K. Gregory, A. Grübler, et al. 2000. Special report on emissions scenarios: A special report of working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Norby, R.J., J. Ledford, C.D. Reilly, N.E. Miller, and E.G. O’Neill. 2004. Fine-root production dominates response of a deciduous forest to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101:9689–9693.Google Scholar
  28. Norby, R.J., S.D. Wullschleger, C.A. Gunderson, D.W. Johnson, and R. Ceulemans. 1999. Tree responses to rising CO2 in field experiments: implications for the future forest. Plant Cell and Environment 22: 683–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ollinger, S.V., J.D. Aber, and C.A. Federer. 1998. Estimating regional forest productivity and water yield using an ecosystem model linked to a GIS. Landscape Ecology 13: 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ollinger, S.V., and M.L. Smith. 2005. Net primary production and canopy nitrogen in a temperate forest landscape: An analysis using imaging spectroscopy, modeling and field data. Ecosystems 8: 760–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peng, C.H., and M.J. Apps. 1999. Modelling the response of net primary productivity (NPP) of boreal forest ecosystems to changes in climate and fire disturbance regimes. Ecological Modelling 122: 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peterson, A.G., J.T. Ball, Y.Q. Luo, C.B. Field, P.B. Reich, P.S. Curtis, K.L. Griffin, C.A. Gunderson, et al. 1999. The photosynthesis leaf nitrogen relationship at ambient and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biology 5: 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reich, P.B., B.D. Kloeppel, D.S. Ellsworth, and M.B. Walters. 1995. Different photosynthesis–nitrogen relations in deciduous hardwood and evergreen coniferous tree species. Oecologia 104: 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosson Jr., J.F. 1995. Forest resources of Louisiana, 1991. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, 78 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Saxe, H., M.G.R. Cannell, B. Johnsen, M.G. Ryan, and G. Vourlitis. 2001. Tree and forest functioning in response to global warming. New Phytologist 149: 369–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saxe, H., D.S. Ellsworth, and J. Heath. 1998. Tree and forest functioning in an enriched CO2 atmosphere. New Phytologist 139: 395–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sholtis, J.D., C.A. Gunderson, R.J. Norby, and D.T. Tissue. 2004. Persistent stimulation of photosynthesis by elevated CO2 in a sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) forest stand. New Phytologist 162: 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, J.E., and L.S. Heath. 2001. Identifying influences on model uncertainty: An application using a forest carbon budget model. Environmental Management 27: 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sohngen, B., and S. Brown. 2006. The influence of conversion of forest types on carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services in the South Central United States. Ecological Economics 57: 698–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soil Survey Staff. 2004. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 89 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Springer, C.J., E.H. DeLucia, and R.B. Thomas. 2005. Relationships between net photosynthesis and foliar nitrogen concentrations in a loblolly pine forest ecosystem grown in elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide. Tree Physiology 25: 385–394.Google Scholar
  42. Tang, Z.M., M.A. Sayer, J.L. Chambers, and J.P. Barnett. 2004. Interactive effects of fertilization and throughfall exclusion on the physiological responses and whole-tree carbon uptake of mature loblolly pine. Canadian Journal of Botany-Revue Canadienne De Botanique 82: 850–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tian, H.Q., G.S. Chen, M.L. Liu, C. Zhang, G. Sun, C.Q. Lu, X.F. Xu, W. Ren, et al. 2010. Model estimates of net primary productivity, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency in the terrestrial ecosystems of the southern United States during 1895–2007. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 1311–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tissue, D.T., R.B. Thomas, and B.R. Strain. 1997. Atmospheric CO2 enrichment increases growth and photosynthesis of Pinus taeda: a 4 year experiment in the field. Plant Cell and Environment 20: 1123–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. USDA Forest Service. 2007. The forest inventory and analysis database: Database description and users guide version 2.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, 210 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Wang, F., and Y.J. Xu. 2009. Hurricane Katrina-induced forest damage in relation to ecological factors at landscape scale. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 156: 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang, F., and Y.J. Xu. 2010. Comparison of remote sensing change detection techniques for assessing hurricane damage to forests. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 162: 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Winter, K., M. Garcia, R. Gottsberger, and M. Popp. 2001. Marked growth response of communities of two tropical tree species to elevated CO2 when soil nutrient limitation is removed. Flora 196: 47–58.Google Scholar
  49. Zaehle, S., S. Sitch, I.C. Prentice, J. Liski, W. Cramer, M. Erhard, T. Hickler, and B. Smith. 2006. The importance of age-related decline in forest NPP for modeling regional carbon balances. Ecological Applications 16: 1555–1574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhong, B., and Y.J. Xu. 2009. Topographic effects on soil organic carbon in Louisiana watersheds. Environmental Management 43: 662–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations